Former boxer and convicted rapist Mike Tyson has entered the sexism debate engulfing Australian politics.
Impressed by Prime Minister Julia Gillard's fiery speech to parliament in which she branded Opposition Leader Tony Abbott sexist, Tyson says society is sexist.
"I'm not saying she's (Julia Gillard) right. I'm not saying that I'm on her side, I'm just going by the facts of what history proves, that most males are that way," Tyson told The Sunday Telegraph.
"We can't help that, society told us to be that way. We have to within ourselves overcome that thinking, change that thinking, and then everybody might be on equal terms."

Mr Abbott is a product of a sexist society, Tyson says.
"I can't judge nobody, I have my own history with people and crime and women and everything, so I'm not going to judge him. We have a process of learning.
"That's what we are as people and as time goes on, maybe we'll learn and think differently.
"I'm not saying he's a bad guy ... I'm just saying sometimes we get caught up with our society."
Tyson, 46, thinks it's "wonderful" Australia has a female prime minister.
The former champion boxer, who was convicted of rape in the US in 1992, will visit Australia in November for a five-day speaking tour.

He says he's a "changed man" and will be on his "best behaviour" when he arrives in the country.
"You know, you're not going to see me in the strip clubs in Australia, you're not going to see me out in the clubs in Australia. I'm not going to be getting high in Australia.
"I'm just going to be going there and enjoying myself, and then hope the people enjoy themselves as well."

On Sunday morning television, Australian Greens leader Christine Milne said Tyson was entitled to his view and that it didn't have anything to do with the prime minister.
"She can't help who supports her or doesn't and says so publicly," Senator Milne told Sky News.

Sunday, October 28, 2012

THE SELF-RIGHTEOUS BBC HIERARCHY SHOULD ALL BE JAILED FOR COMPLICITY IN SAVILE'S CREEPY CRIMESStoke Mandeville Hospital has said it is "shocked" over abuse allegations made against Sir Jimmy Savile while he was at the hospital and said it was unaware of any reports of inappropriate behaviour.

Nurses at the hospital, in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, told children to stay in bed and pretend they were asleep to prevent the TV presenter from groping them, it has been claimed. They were also said to have dreaded Savile's visits because of his behaviour.

The statement from Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust read: "We are shocked to hear of the serious allegations about Jimmy Savile. "We are unaware of any record or reports of inappropriate behaviour of this nature during Jimmy's work with the trust." Rebecca Owen, a former patient at the hospital, told the Daily Telegraph: "It was an air of resignation that you had to put up with.

"There was some sort of ironic chatter between the nurses about who would be the lucky one to go off to his room. Eight criminal allegations have been made to police against Jimmy Savile "And then, as one of the nurses was leaving or passing by my bed, she leant over and said, 'the best you can do is stay in bed until he's gone and pretend to be asleep'."

It comes after two fresh allegations were made about abuse at Leeds General Infirmary relating to incidents in the 1970s. The hospital said two people, thought to be patients, came forward to report abuse. It said it was unclear whether the alleged abuse took place when Savile was a volunteer porter at the hospital, or when he was visiting informally.

In a separate incident, former nurse June Thornton said she saw Savile abuse a brain-damaged young girl at Leeds General Infirmary. Ms Thornton was a patient at the time of the alleged incident and was recovering from an operation. She said: "She had brain damage, and Jimmy Savile came in and kissed her. "He started kissing her neck, running his hands up and down her arms, and then started to molest her. "Because I was laid flat on my back, there was nothing I could do."

A spokesman for Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust said: "We are shocked at the nature and extent of the very serious allegations made against Jimmy Savile which were revealed by the Metropolitan Police on Wednesday. "At this stage we are not aware to what degree their investigation relates to incidents in Leeds." Savile's headstone was removed from a cemetery in Scarborough on Tuesday out of "respect to public opinion". The Jim'll Fix It star died last year at the age of 84.

The elaborate tombstone was removed from Woodlands Cemetery at the request of Savile's family, to be broken up and sent to landfill. Police said they believe the "predatory sex offender" could have abused up to 25 victims over a period of 40 years. Commander Peter Spindler, Scotland Yard's head of specialist crime investigations, said the abuse appeared to have been on a "national scale".

He told the BBC: "At this stage it is quite clear from what women are telling us that Savile was a predatory sex offender." The Metropolitan Police have so far recorded two criminal allegations of rape and six allegations of indecent assault against the former Top of the Pops presenter.

Friday, October 26, 2012

Dr. Michael Pelling put enormous effort into reforming the family courts. In the High Court a judge said; "Dr. Pelling's work in the family courts has been extremely helpful." I was there. Recently Pelling told me he had given up. He also said the Men's Movements were pathetic. Each of the Men's Movements expels their best worker, including me. Eugen Hockenjos worked for seven years to win a case in the highest court. In response, the government changed the law so that the next man would have to start all over again. Recently Eugen told me he had failed.

I worry about a man who works too many decades on this matter, for instance Robert Whiston. For one thing, their women hate it. I think that psychologically it is very damaging.New men come into the Men's Movements and are contemptuous of the failure of previous activists to achieve anything. Matt O'Connor was going to get results in two years, he told me. He had contempt to those who went before him. He is not the only one. If you talk to a new recruit, he immediately knows that your analysis is wrong. Also, he refuses to read the relevant books, for instance Melanie Phillips, Erin Pizzey, Patricia Morgan, Ivor Catt or the radfems like Catharine MacKinnon. Thus all the campaigning for fathers' rights is based on ignorance.The "Retreat" strategy has been successful on all four occasions, and no more fathers are willing to use it. http://www.ivorcatt.com/2908.htm. Matt told me he used it successfully, and then did not tell his members about it.I established that under all law, national and international, a child has no right of access to its father. Divorced/divorcing fathers are indifferent to this information. They are not interested in campaigning for legislation on the matter.We have to sit and watch further generations of children being badly damaged by the family courts. Fathers are unwilling to defy the court's rules of secrecy, as I demanded twenty years ago.

Officially sanctioned injustice focuses the victim’s mind wonderfully. When such an injustice befalls someone of high intelligence, iron will and an enormous reservoir of patience, sometimes one person can change a system.

Meet Toronto tax consultant Lucien Khodeir. Khodeir got screwed over years ago through Canada’s recipient-biased 1997 Child Support Guidelines. He tasked himself to analyze them exhaustively, prove their bias and force judicial reform.

Khodeir is not the first person to denounce the inherent unfairness in the guidelines, but he may be the most pertinacious. He’s written two e-books on the subject, and argued the need for reform through the courts up to the UN level on his own dime. According to almost equally knowledgeable comrades-in-arms, Khodeir has established a new gold standard in legal advocacy for the fathers’ rights movement. We owe him a hearing.

Recently Khodeir sent a 55-page letter to federal and provincial justice ministers, other politicians and media, calling for corrections to the guidelines’ well-known deficiencies, patterned on international reforms undertaken in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. In the United States, he notes, every state’s child-support guidelines are publicly reviewed every four years.

The crux of Canada’s 1997 guidelines’ problem is that they substantially increased support obligations, while payors — usually dads — could no longer deduct their contribution from taxes. All the provinces signed on (except Quebec, where the system is fairer, more reality-based).

The guidelines were premised on a methodologically flawed 1985 study, concluding divorce impoverished women and enriched men. That is not the case. The study ignored the realities of a divorced father’s new logistical burdens and obligations to a second family. Within three years of separation, a third of dads and a quarter of moms have new partners, half including other children. By nine years after separation, 40% of both dads and mums have second families.

Before 1997, judges reviewed individual cases on their merits. After, judges shifted their focus from particular circumstances to the abstract ideal of ending the “feminization of poverty”: i.e., maintaining children’s theoretically desirable lifestyle through support payments that often have no relevance to the individual father’s literal resources. Thus, the famous “deadbeat dad” of popular imagination is largely a myth. Most dads want to comply, but many can’t. In fact, only 10% of fathers are willful defaulters, a lower percentage than support-responsible “deadbeat moms.”

The guidelines’ social-engineering mandate has led to both farce and tragedy.

In 2000, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld as reasonable and fair a Toronto father’s order to pay 96% of his take-home pay in spousal and child support, leaving him $302 a month to live on.

Then there was Darren White of Prince George, B.C., whose dual support orders equalled 114% of his gross income, because the judge chose to believe that White was not paying $439 monthly for a child in another province. White’s ex-wife held the exact same job at the same salary, so should not have needed spousal support. Nevertheless, the judge ordered White out of the family home, adding the cost of new lodgings, and refusing further “visitation” with his children.

Speaking on behalf of the court, another judge said the case was in no way special. Perhaps not to the judge, but special enough to Darrin White that he walked into the woods and hanged himself.

Variations on these injustices fill the family court literature. Stats Canada does not keep separate tabs on custody-linked suicides. But Australia, a country much like our own in this regard, does — and there are about 20 hardship-related suicides a week. An American academic in the field estimates there are about 1,000 divorce-related male suicides a year in the United States. (Women’s suicide rates stay constant through divorce.)

Khodeir notes: “Since May 1997, Canada’s child-support guidelines have been responsible for causing damage to 340,000 divorced parents at the alarming rate of $100-million every month. These damages will reach the $20-billion mark by the end of 2013 and undoubtedly classify Canada’s child-support guidelines as the longest-running, most expensive scandal in the history of Canadian politics.”

The state was counting on fathers to end single-mother poverty, but it hasn’t. A study of Low Income Cut-off (LICO) rates for children of single-parent families seven years after the guidelines were initiated showed no change from the seven years before the guidelines. They are unlikely to have improved since then. It’s time to take a fresh look at the failed guidelines with a view to reality — and gender-neutral justice.

Criticising women not sexism or misogyny

"I WILL not be lectured about sexism and misandry by this woman", he yelled in the chamber.

"What the?" came the muffled reply of all the other members, as they pondered what the hell misandry even means. (Hatred of men, everyone.)

We have really descended to new depths when Julia Gillard cites Tony Abbott’s reference to housewives doing the ironing as evidence of his deep-rooted misogynistic views.

I don’t do the ironing, but this is mainly because I have discovered the joy of new fabrics, most particularly microfibre.

I do, however, mow the lawns, mainly because the lawn-mowing equivalent of the Kreepy Krauly has not yet been discovered.

I have had a long professional career as an economist, working in universities, for the government, as a company director and now as a newspaper commentator.

Have I encountered sexism and misogyny along the way? Not that I have noticed, although I am the type who would be inclined to suck it up and fight back.

I often have criticisms levelled at me. Only yesterday, someone (anonymous, of course) described me as a “commentator’s bootlace”. I take these remarks as indicative of the person’s opinion of my work not good.

That’s fine.

But here’s the real rub: I do not regard what is said or written about me as sexist or misogynistic, even if the comments are expressed in personally abusive terms, which they sometimes are.

My view is that if you put yourself out there, it is only reasonable to expect attacks and criticisms. So be it.

Have I benefited from being in a profession which has traditionally been dominated by men? You bet, although I find comfort in the knowledge that merit and competence are always part of the selection criteria. But could this be called reverse sexism?

The really troubling implication of the showdown in parliament this week is that the Prime Minister will now misrepresent any criticisms of her performance and the performance of her government as examples of sexism and misogyny. She will play this card, even if it is the lowest trick in the book, constantly portraying herself as a helpless victim.

Monday, October 8, 2012

Sad reading folks. We can thank Aunty HELLen for pushing the feminist mandate! No wonder the "system" is a total let down for children and the gender bias ideologies make it hell for fathers. This makes all the bent dyke's go happy- crappy in the fuzzy new age stinking thinking utopian bubble they live in. Do we kiwi's know gender balance is good for kids? Time for equal rights for both genders Ms Klark you deranged wench.Stop the blame game bitch!

"It is those biases which have been built into our system right the way through it, largely from feminist rhetoric that implies that males are always to blame."

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

My blog will cease until I get natural justice. big bruv needs some mental health help.
Time to get real with the enemy.
Watch this space. Oh yes, this fool thinks it can continue its cowardly attack without consequences.
Poor deluded fool is in for a nasty surprise.

From kiwiblog the enemy ( big blouse bruv ) is this;October 3rd, 2012 at 8:15 pm
If I were DPF I would not have been so quick to rescind the ban. D4J is a well practiced liar, it would not surprise me at all if the original post on Cam’s blog did indeed come from him.
[DPF: No, his IP address has always been with the same ISP]

Still big bruv spills his Internet vile. This dude is seriously unhinged or is it a satanic troll monster of cowardly proportions?

His latest from kiwiblog. It makes a good case study on how low down and deranged the anti - God establishment are

big bruv (10,730) Says: October 4th, 2012 at 6:37 am
Oh this is great!
The religious fundies Andrei, Keeping Stock and Kowtow side with the Misogynist Bigot D4J simply because he believes in the sky fairy.
I guess this just shows once again how evil religion is.

Sunday, September 30, 2012

Teen's drastic action

Mikayla Ziebe, 16, is certain of her claim. Photo / John Cowpland

A teenager who claims she was sexually abused as a child has taken the law into her own hands after police declined to take the case to court.
Hastings student Mikayla Ziebe, 16, hand-delivered more than 100 leaflets to Napier houses last week, accusing an elderly man of being a paedophile.
Ziebe's mother, Julie Wakefield, supported the action.
"This is her way of being heard," Wakefield said. "It is her choice and I fully support her."
The letter has four photos of the man, his name and the message: "He is in his 70s, watch out for him."
It was also left in the letterbox of the accused. Ziebe and her mother reported the allegations to Hastings police, which investigated but were unable to press charges because of a lack of evidence.
After four months of counselling this year, Ziebe decided to publicly accuse the man.
"It's horrible and no one will believe me," Ziebe said. "I want them to know I am serious."
Eastern District crime manager detective inspector Rob Jones said police investigated the allegations on two separate occasions and both times fell short of finding sufficient evidence to prosecute.
"Police are satisfied that they have done all they can in relation to this investigation," he said. "The decision not to prosecute was not taken lightly."
He would not comment on people seeking justice outside of the legal system.
The accused man told the Herald on Sunday it was a vicious attack on his family, which they reported to police. He denied the allegations and was overwhelmed with support from his neighbours. "I would be in jail if I was guilty," he said.
Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesperson Garth McVicar said it was a "natural outcome" for people to seek justice when they felt let down by the system.
Auckland Sexual Abuse Help clinical manager Kathryn McPhillips said only 1 per cent of child abuse cases ended in a conviction because the justice system was not child-friendly.
She was surprised victims didn't take matters into their own hands more often.
"For people who were abused as kids, as they age, they think about how other kids can stay safe and it can be a challenge for them to live a good quality of life while they have these ideas that other kids could be unsafe," McPhillips said.
"Until we fix the justice system, it is going to happen more."

Saturday, September 15, 2012

By Emily M. Douglas, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, School of Social Work, Bridgewater State University

A national research project is recruiting men to participate in a study on men’s experience with partner aggression. Researchers at Clark University and Bridgewater State University are conducting this study on men who have experienced aggression from their girlfriends, wives, or female partners.

If you are a man between the ages of 18-59 and have experienced aggression from a female partner at some point during your life, you may be eligible to participate in this study. Researchers, Denise A. Hines, Ph.D. and Emily M. Douglas, Ph.D., invite you to follow this link to the study webpage where you can complete the online survey about your experience.

Your participation is very important and, in the future, will help men with similar experiences get the help they need. Participation is completely anonymous. They do not ask for your name or any other identifying information in the survey.

The survey takes about 20-30 minutes to complete and is being funded by the National Institutes of Health. Participation is completely voluntary. You may withdraw your participation at any time.

Biology is making it clearer by the day that a man’s health and well-being have a measurable impact on his future children’s health and happiness. This is not because a strong, resilient man has a greater likelihood of being a fabulous dad — or not only for that reason — or because he’s probably got good genes. Whether a man’s genes are good or bad (and whatever “good” and “bad” mean in this context), his children’s bodies and minds will reflect lifestyle choices he has made over the years, even if he made those choices long before he ever imagined himself strapping on a Baby Bjorn.

Saturday, September 8, 2012

In solidarity brothers. The Femily Court is a manufacturer of suicidal dads and cot case kids. It's all thanks to the gravy train of deceit. Follow the blood money honey. The staff who work here cannot have any consciences! These cold reptilian creeps enjoy fracturing families and killing good dads.

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Courts almost always believe a woman over a man today.
Sad fact that our Femily Caught system is allowed to practice blatant unlawful gender discrimination. Many falsely accused dads find the gender bias so overwhelming they suicide as they know the disgusting Femily Caught will never allow him to see his children again .

Our legal pendulum swings to yet another extreme. Gender bias runs rampant in ourfamily court system. In the 1960's women, fought hard to get laws passed toprotect women against domestic violence. It took many painful years for ourlegal system to recognize women as victims of domestic violence. Domesticviolence, stalking, and sexual harassment laws were passed and enforced toprotect "true victims." Many women lived through domestic violence;many died. Some went to jail for homicide; some were later pardoned. We, aswomen, finally got society to recognize violence against women.

Shame on all those women of the 1990's who now use these laws to their advantage infamily courts to bring men to their knees; and to erase fathers from the livesof their children! False allegations by women of child abuse, domesticviolence, and stalking are almost never questioned by judges for fear of beingpolitically incorrect.

Women who feel justified in punishing men use these false charges indiscriminately. Childrenare forgotten and have become our newest victims with full cooperation from ourFamily Court system. Children need fathers too. A recent US Department ofEducation study, "Fathers Involved in Their Children's Education"(free for a phone call - 1-800-424-1616, option 3) will bear out these truths.

Women have become educated in the ways of our legal system. A new study purportswomen are filing 70% of divorces today. The first person to file usuallywins. The unfortunate person against whom false allegations are chargedmust prove their innocence while a plaintiff proves nothing. As a paralegal anda woman, I am no longer proud of those of female gender who abuse our legalsystem.

An innocent father involved in a nasty contested divorce from a woman who vows vengeance is helpless in Family Court. Important child support laws enacted arenow strictly and sometimes unfairly enforced. There are stories of fathers wholost their jobs from downsizing and/or circumstances beyond their control. Whenthe mother of his children insists on back child support, he is thrown intojail. Child support is based on his "earning ability." Debtor'sprison has become our most recent politically correct means to control men.Here again, our Family Courts condone whatever women allege, accuse, anddictate to control men.

Should a husband make the mistake of remarrying, further angering his ex-wife, asecond wife's income is used as "a way to show ability to pay." Themother of their children, on the other hand, can marry another man. The"other man's" income is never used to lower child support. Court'srationale - "they are not his children, not his responsibility."Since when did a mother bear no responsibility for her children? Today's womenare earning more, and are becoming a majority in our workforce. The stay athome mom of the 50's rarely exists today. I knew of a man who ended up payingso much child support (plus child expenses) he had to move back home with hisparents. Yet his ex-wife earned more than he did.

False allegations of child abuse by a vengeful ex-wife devastate not only children,but fathers. The wife files first to take advantage of all laws passed to protect true victims of abuse and violence. The wife charges everything from domestic violence to stalking to child abuse.

Iknow of a man who was falsely accused of child sexual abuse. By the time he wasfound innocent, he lost his job, his reputation, and everything he owned.Recent statistics do show women are becoming our primary child abusers, andyes, even killers of our children. Yet our Family Courts consistently believe,"the mother always makes the best parent."

Somemothers today emotionally blackmail and intimidate their children intofabricating abuse by their father. I know a man who fought two years to getcustody of his son from a proven mentally ill mother who abused their son. Eachtime the court insisted "the mother is the best parent."

Alarge number of children are ordered to see a child psychologist when divorceis filed. Counselors and psychologists are encouraged by our system to give badreports against a father. Fathers are automatically presumed capable of abusebefore any mother.

Mothersare intentionally denying visitation to loving, child support paying fathers,who then spend money and time in court trying to get visitation enforced. Iknow a man who hasn't seen his son in 14 years, but religiously pays his childsupport. He stopped pursuing visitation in court when the mother threatenedharm to the son. Is this fair? Why is there no press on "intentionaldenial of visitation"?

Oneof the saddest true stories I know of is a little nine year old boy who was putin a mental institution by his mother until he stopped saying, "I want tosee my daddy." There are too many stories of children committing suicide.I personally know of a woman who kept her teenage son up night after nightcrying about her divorce, repeatedly telling him "children ruinmarriages." Her son turned to drinking, drugs, and dropped out of college.

Divorceis a reality. It is currently a billion dollar a year business. Contesteddivorce is guerilla warfare whether people want to acknowledge it or not.Everyone wants fuzzy warm answers to harsh reality. There are none unless weall recognize the gender bias against males perpetuated in Family Court today,and the undeniable damage it does to our children.

Yearsago women had a disadvantage in our domestic courts. Now they can feel quitehappy knowing most women win. They can manipulate child support into"backdoor alimony," deprive their children of their fathers, and ruintheir husband. Truth no longer exists in our legal system.

Yes,we have come a long way. Women can be proud of the laws they fought hard for30+ years ago. I am personally grateful for these laws. Let us not blasphemethose women who died for the very laws that many women are abusing today. Wemust stop abusing these laws, or one day our legal pendulum will swing back andour true victims will not be believed again.

Youthink you are beating men? You are beating yourself; destroying your children;and making the racketeers in our legal system rich. You are creating ageneration of children who think love is conditional and possessive; who learnthat violence by proxy and misuse of the law will make you a winner.

Iwill never be associated with any "feminist" movement which advocatesfalse allegations, destroying children, and eliminating good fathers.

Let'sremember that it is children, not women, who are the real victims of the genderbias in our family courts.

1. Muslim women are too easy a target. Muslims are a tiny minority in New Zealand, and Islamic culture is probably the least anti-male culture on the face of the Earth. Where has Paul Young been, while I have been fighting the much more powerful White feminists and Maori feminists (who seem to dominate the domestic violence industry)? His action looks a little like Muslim-bashing.

2. As far as I know, Muslim society does not just ban men from female social events -- it also bans women from male social events. Therefore it is non-sexist and consistent.

3. The Muslim ban on unmarried and unrelated men and women from mingling socially protects men from false rape allegations. In Western countries, if a drunk man has sex with a drunk woman, the man is quite likely to be accused of rape, because a drunk woman is deemed to be unable to give consent, but drunkenness is not an excuse for (his) "criminal" behaviour. Logically, the woman should also be able to be accused of raping the man -- but we live in a sexist, anti-male society.

4. Moreover -- and here we get to the really sinister part of the story -- the man-hating, feminist rag The Dominion Post actually had the banning of men from this exhibition in big headlines at the top of its front page! That should automatically send up a huge red flag, announcing that something was really wrong here. The only times that The Dominion Post (or Radio New Zealand) has ever tried to interview me about Men's Rights was when they thought they could show me up in a bad light, or when I took them to court for anti-male bias (http://nzmera.orconhosting.net.nz/zohravag.html). A male feminist from The Dominion Post tried to interview me to get some sort of angry or depressed reaction to the fact that (at that time) New Zealand had a female Governor-General, female Prime Minister, female Chief Justice and female CEO of its largest listed company. However, I just said that I was interested in pro-male policies, rather than in male frontmen (http://nzmera.orconhosting.net.nz/frontman.html) -- so The Dominion Post did not even mention me in its story! So The Dominion Post only headlined this story about Muslim women in order strategically to drive a wedge between Islam and Men's Rights!

5. Here is another red flag: In one media account (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/entertainment/8522600/video-prompts-nz-sex-discrimination-storm), Nicholai Anderson, a senior associate at the law firm Chen Palmer, was quoted as saying that "banning men would be unlawful discrimination by the museum or the people displaying the work." Chen Palmer is run by the feminist networker, Mai Chen, who is one of those rare specimens -- an intelligent feminist. When I was thinking of taking the Institute of Judicial Studies to court over its teaching of so-called "gender equity" to judges (http://nzmera.orconhosting.net.nz/institut.html), I spoke to one of Mai Chen's male subordinates about the possibility of his taking on the case pro bono (i.e. for free) -- Chen Palmer is the only New Zealand specialist Public Law firm that I know of. Negotiations broke down, because Mai Chen would only let the firm do it if I made the political concession of criticising the Muslim approach to women (or some aspect of it, such as the hijab and/or veil). Now, it was good that Mai Chen was willing to take the case on for free -- but it shows what women do when you allow them into the workforce: they use their job power for political purposes. I have lived/stayed in Muslim-majority countries for a total of 14 months, and my opinion is that, if we had a choice between the oppression of men in countries like New Zealand and the Muslim system, then the Muslim sysem would be a viable option.

Feminists are always thinking strategically, as you can see by the behaviour of many university lecturers, for example. For a start, the Women's Movement essentially involves the manipulation by Lesbians of other women, in order to create a society where Lesbians can live independently of men -- whether this is in the best interests of other women, of men, or of children -- or not. Then the Feminists have had to get into informal coalitions with ethnic minorities and unionists, etc., forming the sort of "rainbow coalition" which is the backbone of most large Left-wing parties. It is high time that Masculists also started thinking strategically too. At the international (United Nations) level, I have heard that (for example) the Catholics and the Muslims work together. At the national and local level, too, Masculists should work together with Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, other Christian sects, conservative Jews, other religions, conservative ethic minorities, anti-abortionists. and so on.

Sunday, September 2, 2012

Happy fathers men. Give yourself a pat on the back, as the
day is an acknowledgement that you are needed in a balanced society. Don’t take
any notice of the continual media bombardment which delights itself in
portraying men as bubbling idiots. The media are weak feminist controlled
lickspittles of the highest order.

And dads, don’t worry about our Prime Minister developing
another homosexual lisp that he caught at the big gay out. Remember men,
politicians are held in the same regard as paedophiles. Never trust these
progressive scum types who are as dangerous to society as the kiddy f##kers .

I am 52 and my four grown up children have contacted me from
various parts around the globe expressing gratitude and love for their dad. I
am bloody chuffed because I must have done something right eh big bruv you
deranged fixated creep.

I hope that all the real role model dads enjoy such strong
and loyal bonds of love with their children. Love will conquer all , even a bent justice system.

To the dads alienated from their children due to the vile
scum that work at that gender bias Femily Caught I say, hang in there mate, I
did nearly a decade battling the filth and still didn’t win. Just remember the
judges have the blood of many falsely accused fathers on their insipid hands.
These same judges look the other way when I confront them. They know they
shafted me good and proper.

Anyway dads, I sincerely hope you enjoy your day. You deserve it mate.

Sunday, August 26, 2012

For decades now all men have been portrayed as potential rapists just ask our national airline AirNZ who don't allow men to sit next to children. The constant undermining of the male species is why we have so little men employed as school teachers and the ones who are employed are potential paedophiles if recent events are a true indicator. Shame society can't fathom the irreparable damage to future generations this stinking thinking unlawful gender discrimination is causing. In a balanced society there is no room for gender bias. Children need male role models. End of story.

Friday, August 24, 2012

Phyllis could be wrting about the destruction of my family. It was destroyed by the justice system through false allegations of domestic violence and child abuse. Big mistake from the sick system and no legal come back. Fair? I think not, but that's life for a father in the Western World these sad days.Most of all, the marriage is being destroyed by U.S. laws that encourage marriage breakup, divorce, arrests when no victim makes a complaint, restraining orders designed to separate family members, hearsay used as evidence in court, child punishment that is called child protection, child-custody disputes instead of shared custody, always blaming the man, assuming the woman is incompetent to assert her own interests, police policies that require the cops to arrest somebody (guess who that always turns out to be), exaggerating a minor argument into a criminal case, and ignoring the marital privilege.http://www.eagleforum.org/publications/column/2012-08-22.html

Eagle Forum

How the Government Breaks Up Marriages

By Phyllis Schlafly

August 22, 2012

A very public marital melodrama is now playing in San Francisco. It shows the idiocy of domestic violence laws and the extremism of the feminists whose ideology paints men as innate batterers and women as victims of the patriarchy.

The target of their current campaign is the elected Sheriff, Ross Mirkarimi. After six months of demeaning publicity and headlines like“Sheriff arrested for wife beating,” last week the city’s Ethics Commission voted 4 to 1 against him. He has been suspended without pay and may soon be fired.

The saga isn’t over yet, but the story is so bizarre that it deserves to be told nationwide. The accused has my sympathy, even though he is a leftwing Democrat. Yes, I believe that leftists deserve due process and fair treatment in our criminal justice system.

The local prosecutor charged Mirkarimi with the crimes of domestic violence and child endangerment, which sound bad, but the evidence was trivial. The domestic violence charge was based on Mirkarimi grabbing his wife’s arm during a New Year’s Eve argument which allegedly left a bruise, and the child endangerment charge was based solely on their toddler (who was not touched) merely being present when this argument took place.

Mirkarimi’s wife, Eliana Lopez, never made any complaint and she publicly defended her husband. She is an intelligent adult, a former Venezuelan telenovela star, who is perfectly able to make her own decisions.

At Mirkarimi’s arraignment, Lopez declined to paint herself as a domestic violence victim. She told the judge, “This is unbelievable. I don’t have any complaint against my husband.”

Lopez added, “This country is trying to pull my family apart. This is the real violence, I believe.” She made a written statement saying that the episode was “completely taken out of context.”

Outside the court, Lopez told reporters that “this country has not allowed me to work on my marriage in a healthy way. I feel like … everybody is using my family, myself, in a political game just to destroy Ross. … This country is destroying my family.”

Mirkarimi’s trouble was aggravated by a picture taken by a neighbor — not of the argument — but only of the bruise on the wife’s arm. Lopez did not authorize the release of the picture to the police.

A picture of a bruise is meaningless, especially when no one is claiming to be hurt. Some people bruise easily. Many people get ugly bruises playing sports and apparently enjoy every minute of the game.

Lopez did not request a restraining order but Judge Susan Breall issued one anyway, forbidding Mirkarimi to see his wife or son or to go into his own house. He hasn’t seen them for many months.

Faced with defending himself at a criminal trial, Mirkarimi agreed to a plea bargain, which involved pleading guilty to one misdemeanor that does not include domestic violence. The prosecutor dropped the three original charges, but Mirkarimi was sentenced to three years’ probation, 52 weeks of domestic violence classes, 100 hours of community service, a $400 fine, and required attendance at family counseling.

Why is this minor marital argument, in which no one is complaining, the government’s business? Where are the liberals, libertarians and gays who are always demanding that the government get out of the bedroom?

Based on the newspaper reports, it appears that this country is, indeed, determined to destroy this family. The prosecutor, the judge, the cops, and the neighbor have all contributed to the problem.

Most of all, the marriage is being destroyed by U.S. laws that encourage marriage breakup, divorce, arrests when no victim makes a complaint, restraining orders designed to separate family members, hearsay used as evidence in court, child punishment that is called child protection, child-custody disputes instead of shared custody, always blaming the man, assuming the woman is incompetent to assert her own interests, police policies that require the cops to arrest somebody (guess who that always turns out to be), exaggerating a minor argument into a criminal case, and ignoring the marital privilege.

The feminist lobby has intimidated most public officials from speaking out against the abuses committed by those who allege domestic violence, but one brave San Franciscan has spoken up in Mirkarimi’s defense. Former Mayor Art Agnos said, “I know this man and this woman. They love each other. They support each other. They love their child. They want to be together again. It does not rise … to anything close to domestic violence.”

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

The last thing NZ needs right now is more twisted social engineering masterminded by a radical group of homosexual activists like helen clark and peter davis, dim barnett and the silly John Key does nothing?

Please for kiwi sanity sign the petition.

"Signature count as of yesterday: ***36,969*** Can we get to 50,000 by Wed. 29th? If everyone on this page could get just 4 friends to sign, we'd be there!"

Monday, August 20, 2012

Saturday, August 18, 2012

To Mr Putin, you are one gutless egotistical dictator who rules with constant fear and devious trickery. You pick on people who tell the truth about your many hidden agendas. And Putin if you think your army is ready for Israel then read the good book to learn what fate awaits such demonic creeps as yourself. Rot in hell Putin you wimpish arsehole. Send the KGB down under Mr Not So Tough. You don't frightened real blokes, who know you are suffering from a severe case of short man's disease.

Friday, August 17, 2012

Thank God for the sane words of such a common sense man. Pity that our pathetic Prime Minister and his Beehive cronies don't have the guts too condemn the legal marriage of queers. Why in a country saturated with widespread child abuse would a wayward government bother with minority agenda social engineering? Sick stuff from a callous government obviously not concerned about supporting the traditional family. Kids need a mum and dad , fact end of story. Our Nation is sick just ask anybody with a brain cell. Time real conservatives smashed up this stinking thinking from deranged progressive suckhole dirtbags. The likes of Helen Clark , Tim Barnett, John Key, Peter Davis and Chris Carter will be remembered in the future as the insidious turd tappers who helped destroy the sanctity of marriage and the traditional family unit.